deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  index c0a47fd..8847692 100644  --- a/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex  +++ b/textbf_Discussion_and_recommendations_textbf__.tex 
...
The already mentioned extract of Recommendation 1.1 of the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” recommends to follow the first path: the policy should by itself grant a non-exclusive license to the institution to make future articles Open Access. The alternative option would in fact leave the burden of negotiation with publishers in the hands of faculty, \textit{“mak[ing] access uneven”} (Shieber and Suber p. 8-9).  Here, again, the position adopted by the European Commission in its Guidelines on OA (H2020 Guidelines) is not clear. In fact, even if they state that \textit{“}after depositing publications \textit{[…], beneficiaries must ensure open access”} (Guidelines, p. 6, emphasis added), those \textit{“beneficiaries”} are usually the institutions – not the single authors –; that means that an institution could have already acquired from the faculty – even \textit{ex ante}, once and for all, with a general OA policy – those rights needed in order to ensure OA, and then use those rights only after the deposit of publications. We can hence hazard to state that the European Commission is indifferent to the adoption of either of the “rights holding” alternatives.  As we are going to deepen below (\textit{infra}, §) already mentioned,  mandatory non-waivable deposit is a feature required for OA-by-default policies in order to be effective; but the very same deposit mandate – even if not accompanied by an OA mandate (waivable or not) – has per se \textit{per se}  the power of fostering Open Access: Access (\textit{infra}, §):  it is not for nothing that Suber and Shieber recommend this path in those cases where policy granting non-exclusive rights to institution is an unattainable solution (Suber-shieber p. 9). From its point of view, the already mentioned Recommendation 1.1 promotes – as an alternative to non-exclusive license directly conferred by OA policy – an OA policy \textit{“requir[ing] dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained”} (BOAI10). Even if the two above-mentioned authors imply that the obtaining of OA permission should be attributed to the institution – \textit{“the deposit will be “dark” (non-OA) until the institution can obtain permission to make it OA”} (Suber-shieber p. 9) – the plain text of the Recommendation is not so univocal: it might rather refer to the author and to permission accorded to her by the publisher, also given that it is preceded by: \textit{“When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend [...]”}. It is therefore unclear whether the “Ten years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative” is recommending policies imposing OA each time faculty own the rights needed in order to do so, or whether it is allowing policies requiring deposit but simply encouraging OA.  Anyhow, it can be affirmed that mandatory-deposit policies are considered an option almost as good as Open-Access-by-default ones.